From: ben franchuk <bfranchuk_at_jetnet.ab.ca>
Date: Tue Mar 23 14:33:47 2004

Paul Koning wrote:

> Meanwhile, something like AXE is your best bet to catch unexpected
> instruction interactions. It was used because it provides FAR better
> coverage than conventional CPU diagnostics. Not alone, of course --
> you still want to pass regular diagnostics, and run all the
> applications you can think of. And the microcode still has to be
> carefully designed and coded. But AXE adds yet another level of
> assurance to the implementation.

Forget the axe!
Build simpler computers that work!

> paul

I don't still don't trust it! CPU diagnostics needs to be designed into
the CPU in the design not added later. But CPU's nowdays are designed
for speed not long life. Also what happens when AXE or any other test
finds a FAULT. Crash the system or what?

+ Windows error 66666 System tests OK! +
+ Windows error 99999 System does not test OK! +

Received on Tue Mar 23 2004 - 14:33:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:05 BST